Congressman...
Submitted by Max 1 on February 13, 2007 - 8:37pm.
Back on Jan. 31, 2006 you held a full Committee hearing concerning Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush Administration where the Hon. Mickey Edwards (R-Ok) testified to the matter of the President signing unconstitutional Bills into Law. That in doing so, it would constitute a direct violation of his Oath of Office.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is such an example. Within it's body, the Constitutionally protected right of Habeas Corpus was lifted, some say suspended, for those found to be domestic enemy combatants. Thus, any and every American that is cited as potentially being an enemy combatant qualifies for the unjust and unconstitutional treatment of no Habeas protections.
The right of Habeas Corpus is a Constitutionally enumerated right that, "can not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".
As with all instances, enumerated rights that are under consideration of Constitutional redefining, isn't it correct that any measures must go before the people of the States to be voted upon as an Amendment to the Constitution? Does Congress hold this privilege or does it lie at the feet of the people?
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of United States citizens to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions." In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Congress's attempts to strip the courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), "Procedures for Status Review of Detainees Outside the United States".
On September 29, 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).
On February 9, 2007, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that a U.S. citizen in U.S. military custody in Iraq has the right to challenge his detention in a federal court.
Appeals Court Backs Detainee
The judges said all American citizens, regardless of where they are captured and imprisoned, are entitled to federal court review of their cases through habeas corpus petitions if they are in U.S. custody.The mere fact that this Administration attempted to move Shawqi Ahmad Omar out of their custody and into that of the Iraqis so as to deney him his Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus demonstrates a willingness to circumvent Constitutional Law.
The court also found that the U.S. military cannot transfer Omar to the Iraqi government to avoid a habeas corpus hearing. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who dissented in part, agreed that the district court has jurisdiction over Omar's habeas case.
The breach of trust occurred on September 29, 2006, when the President willfully violated his Oath of Office to faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States of America, so as to sign into law an unconstitutional act.
On February 9, 2007, the Courts reaffirmed that breach of trust.
Where is the Congressional rebuke of this man's unconstitutional activities toward Americans?
No censure? No Impeachment? No accountability?
The precedent that is being set through Congresses abrogation of their Duty to hold the Executive accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors not only places the Presidency in a position beyond the boundary and scope of Constitutional Law, but also sends a clear message to the people; Democracy is dead in America.
UNACCEPTABLE!
Every day I act and try to stop this madness and watch Congress only talk about it. It would be nice to switch roles and talk about watching you act at stopping this madness for a change.
All of which isn't to say that Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Ct) introduction of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 (full textpdf) is an honorable attempt to right a wrong perpetrated upon the people of the U.S.A. and it's Constitution.
However, why attempt to restore that which can not be denied from the people but through a Constitutional Amendment? In which case it is through the consent of the people.
The MCA of 2006 was never a Constitutional Amendment but merely an attempt to garner concentrated power away from the people and into that of the Executive through a Bill made into law. A direct subversive attempt made against the people and the Constitution which defines the United States of America.
The correct course of action is to hold those that endorsed it and attempted to make, what otherwise would be unconstitutional, into the law of the land despite the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Law clause.
===================================================
You aren't defending, protecting, preserving the Constitution of the USA
When you allow the usurpations of the Constitutional laws of the USA.